Based on 20 "yes or no" questions, this new app purports to definitively answer the question of their sons' sexuality to worried parents. I actually bought it just to see the reviews which ranged from "Great app. Very informative" and "Informative, accurate and useful. I have lots of work to do." to "This is crap. You are promoting stereotypes." and "Insane. I can't believe Google allows this." And this is the first day of issue.

In reaction, the author of the app apparently claims it was meant humourously but I promise you there isn't an iota of levity anywhere in it. The nod at the end to "acceptance" is so weak as to be counterproductive to the type of parent who's going to buy it particularly since it's based on wholly disproven stereotypes and essentially blames parenting for the child's sexuality. I'm not sure how I feel about "banning" it, given my feelings about the First Amendment, but things like this are dangerous and a voluntary withdrawal would be welcome.

Omg! Hardly a valid measurement! If many a psychologist or scientist can't work out what makes some one gay or not that isn't going to be able to either. For example; I take it answering "no" to 'have you ever met a girlfriend' doesnt neccessarily mean he's gay (even though if your answer no to that question wil probably earn him 'gay points' (i'm sorry for my choice of phrasing). The same could be said for the take time to get ready question. I literally chuck whats nearest on but i'm 50% gay so...

"To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."

Ah, I hear you, HS, but I'm not trying to intimate that. I would rather the "publishers" come to this by conscience than to be forced to legally. I would like to see the force of their own moral compass--in addition to public opinion--compel them, much more than the force of law.

I hear you too, Nick. All I saw was "Not sure," "First Amendment," "Banning," and "Dangerous," and I got all Section Two trigger-happy. (Section Two is the canuck equivalent of the First Amendment, but since we haven't had such a strong free-speech tradition as the U.S. does, the state was imposing fines for making hurtful remarks until just a couple years ago).

But to stay on my soapbox, which I am so loath to relinquish:

Public pressure to enforce norms in expression can be a force for good. There are boycotts going on of Best Buy and Target for supporting a bigoted candidate for office in Minnesota, against Chick-Fil-A and Domino's Pizza for their support for anti-gay and anti-woman causes, and too many boycotts of union-busting companies like Wal-Mart to mention. I don't think I'll be flying Southwest any time soon after its recent ejections of muslims and lesbians from airplanes for no good reason.

But what about the Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses, which was not undertaken by the state? What about the Hays Code and the Comic Book Code, which were discussed in the article I linked to, and were not established or enforced by the state? Or the MPAA, for that matter, which, without government sanction, effectively decrees that studios may not distribute movies that are unsuitable for children? Or the cartoons of a certain prophet, which I also linked to, which most 'responsible' outlets refuse to publish, under coercion from private parties? (Incidentally, let's see how long that link remains in my post above - LPSG has every right to remove it, and it would do so as a private party - but would it be consistent with the principle of freedom of expression to do so?).